4 ms·
None of that shit looks new or interesting.
by deciplex 11y ago
None of that shit looks new or interesting.
- golergka 11y agoMay be I'm not aware of all that blockchain does, but does it really provide risk scores based on transaction histories?
- stymaar 11y ago> [The] claims must meet relevant patentability requirements, such as novelty, usefulness, and non-obviousness. (wikipedia) Novelty may be fulfilled, but like in many software patents, the “non-oblivious” part is really questionable here.
- golergka 11y agoQuestionable — agreed. This doesn't make it something that was already implemented.
- stymaar 11y ago> This doesn't make it something that was already implemented. That's exactly my point : because it's already implemented doesn't mean you can register a patent on it. You cannot register “obvious” things, even if nobody uses it already.
- golergka 11y agoI never said that they should be granted these patents. I'm not an expert. It _seemed_ to me that it was new and interesting; now I see how I was wrong about that, yes. But my main point was that these patents are not obvious bullshit of patenting the blockchain principle itself.
- PatentTroll 11y agoEven if that is true, it hasn't been examined yet and it hasn't issued as a patent. Patent Publications just print whatever someone filed. So, if you wanted to waste money, you could file a patent on the wheel, and 18 months later it would publish as a pre-grant publication. That doesn't grant you a patent to the wheel.